Outside of there I can't say that I've seen them or do not recall.  When it happened it was quite remarkable.  Most were high up near the ceiling and about the size of volleyballs.  They would flash into and out of sight sometimes hanging in sight for up to 10 seconds or more.  The one that really blew me away was right after we held a channeling session I had gone to use the bathroom, I was looking outside and flash, an orb that  would probably be the size of a SUV appeared and flashed out of sight.  The look of the light and its appearance/dissapearance looked much like the effect they used on Star Trek for the entity Q.

I have heard that orbs are ghosts.

According to Blue we entered the photon radiation belt approx mid 90's and now we are about to encounter the first emmission line which is very ultra dense with UV photon radiation. The Blue reckon that the above Colour spectrum with the hydrogen spectral lines is very reflective of what our photon radiation belt is like. If you noticed there are 7 lines all taking us up tp 2012-2013 with the last emission line in the "red" region. (Blue call this last region infrared, but doesn't look it to me).

According to Blue as we approach this red/infrared region in 2012 and beyond, every day natural occurences of what one calls "orbs" will become common place where as now only seen by very few and usually with digital cameras.

About Dynamic range
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stops_(Dynamic_Range)
http://www.dpreview.com/learn/?/Glossar … nge_01.htm

Some “orbs"  even got the shape of the lens diaphragm like that one you used PhotoShop...
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/bokeh.shtml
http://www.vanwalree.com/optics/bokeh.html

From http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/bokeh.htm
Diaphragm Blades
The shape and number of a lens' diaphragm blades has little to do with bokeh.
They define the shape of the blur circle, but they don't define how the light is
distributed within that circle. These circles are no longer circles, but shapes
with as many sides as there are blades. For instance, with five blades as most
Hasselblad and Mamiya lenses one gets five-sided pentagons as the shapes of out-
of-focus highlights instead of circles. This isn't too great. With six blades,
most common in discount lenses for 35mm SLRs, one gets hexagons. With seven
blades (most Nikkor SLR lenses) things really start to improve, since the seven-
sided heptagons start looking like circles instead of recognizable shapes. Nine
blades (common on Nikkor telephotos) are great, and lately they are being
designed with curved blades to give a close approximation of a circle.

Odd numbers of blades will give diffraction and reflection stars around very
bright points of light that have double the number of points as the number of
blades. For instance, a seven-blade diaphragm will give a lovely 14-pointed
star. Even numbers of blades will give stars with the same number of points as
you have blades. An eight-bladed diaphragm will give a boring eight pointed
star.

Again, how well one approximates a circle is only a small part of the equation.
The important part is how the light is distributed. Obviously at full aperture
where most people worry about this the diaphragm plays no part.

The reason some manufacturers attempt to draw a correlation between bokeh and
numbers of diaphragm blades is because it's easy to see how many blades there
are at the sales counter, but almost impossible to see bokeh.

The following pic was taken on Sept. 12, 2001 in the New York Streeets

As was this:

From my firend Devillstix who visited Ireland for a wedding:

I ran it through Photoshop and just put a find edges filter on it. More here:
http://www.wachadoo.com/forum/ftopic202.html

One way to distinguish real ones from dust or droplets is that real ones will often illuminate nearby objects.

Ya - i've sensed them before too,
the couple of good photos I have
definately don't look like lens flare - the one is quite opaque, it reminds me
of a single cell organism when I zoomed in  a bit - lots of internal features, shapes, distinct coloring
etc.

I'm still looking on my hard drive for it - system crash few months ago.
but i know it's somewhere!!

I too, have been interested in orbs for a while and have considered that many photos of 'orbs' are not orbs at all.
I have a few photos that I'll try to dig up.
The one I recall was from a very large drum circle.  I'll try to find it to post it.

treehugger wrote:

True orbs are  opaque and bright.

Is that the best definition to distinguish between the two?

curious.

thx

No, that probably wasnt the best definition to distiguish between the two, but its the best as far as what Ive expereinced. Most what I call "true orbs" appeared in photos when I "knew" an entity or energy was present when the picture was taken.  Thats not to say that it could be other than that. I think people are too quick to call lens flare, dust and water particles orbs.   I cant say for positive what they are. I know what I have seen and "felt.  So that is MY definition of what I THINK is a picture of an energy, not a dust or water particle. Does that clarify things?

http://www.awakenedhearts.com/orbs1.htm

Is that the best definition to distinguish between the two?

curious.

thx

http://www.crystalinks.com/photorbs.html

...I wanted to see what would happen if I took a digital pic through a spray bottle mist with the flash on.

Here is another that looks like a swarm of orbs is clustered near the corner. Just because something can be faked doesn't mean it's fake, but there should be some way of distinguishing real orb photos from ones of water or dust particles.

Just a flare...
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/flare.shtml